Posted on 09/22/2006 2:04:29 PM PDT by presidio9
Now the death toll is 9/11 times two. U.S. military deaths from Iraq and Afghanistan now match those of the most devastating terrorist attack in America's history, the trigger for what came next. Add casualties from chasing terrorists elsewhere in the world, and the total has passed the Sept. 11 figure.
The latest milestone for a country at war comes without commemoration. It also may well come without the precision of knowing who is the 2,973rd man or woman of arms to die in conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, or just when it happens. The terrorist attacks killed 2,973 victims in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.
Not for the first time, war that was started to answer death has resulted in at least as much death for the country that was first attacked, quite apart from the higher numbers of enemy and civilians killed, too.
Historians note that this grim accounting is not how the success or failure of warfare is measured, and that the reasons for conflict are broader than what served as the spark.
The body count from World War II was far higher for Allied troops than for the crushed Axis. Americans lost more men in each of a succession of Pacific battles than the 2,390 people who died at Pearl Harbor in the attack that made the U.S. declare war on Japan. The U.S. lost 405,399 in the theaters of World War II.
Despite a death toll that pales next to that of the great wars, one casualty milestone after another has been observed and reflected upon this time, especially in Iraq.
There was the benchmark of seeing more U.S. troops die in the occupation than in the swift and successful invasion. And the benchmarks of 1,000 dead, 2,000, 2,500.
Now this.
"There's never a good war but if the war's going well and the overall mission remains powerful, these numbers are not what people are focusing on," said Julian Zelizer, a political historian at Boston University. "If this becomes the subject, then something's gone wrong."
Beyond the tribulations of the moment and the now-rampant doubts about the justification and course of the Iraq war, Zelizer said Americans have lost firsthand knowledge of the costs of war that existed keenly up to the 1960s, when people remembered two world wars and Korea, and faced Vietnam.
"A kind of numbness comes from that," he said. "We're not that country anymore — more bothered, more nervous. This isn't a country that's used to ground wars anymore."
Almost 10 times more Americans have died in Iraq than in Afghanistan, where U.S. casualties have been remarkably light by any historical standard, although climbing in recent months in the face of a resurgent Taliban.
As of Friday, the U.S. death toll stood at 2,693 in the Iraq war and 278 in and around Afghanistan, for a total of 2,971, two short of the Sept. 11 attacks.
The Pentagon reports 56 military deaths and one civilian Defense Department death in other parts of the world from Operation Enduring Freedom, the anti-terrorism war distinct from Iraq. Altogether, 3,028 have died abroad since Sept. 11, 2001.
The latest identified by the armed forces:
• Army 2nd Lt. Emily J.T. Perez, 23, Fort Washington, Md., who died Sept. 12 in Kifl, Iraq, from an explosive device detonated near her vehicle. A former high school sprinter who sang in her West Point gospel choir, she was assigned to the 204th Support Battalion, 2nd Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.
• Marine Sgt. Christopher M. Zimmerman, 28, Stephenville, Texas, killed Wednesday in Anbar province, Iraq. He was assigned to 2nd Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C.
A new study on the war dead and where they come from suggests that the notion of "rich man's war, poor man's fight" has become a little truer over time.
Among the Americans killed in the Iraq war, 34 percent have come from communities reporting the lowest levels of family income. Half have come from middle income communities and only 17 percent from the highest income level.
That's a change from World War II, when all income groups were represented about equally. In Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, the poor have made up a progressively larger share of casualties, by this analysis.
Eye-for-an-eye vengeance was not the sole motivator for what happened after the 2001 attacks any more than Pearl Harbor alone was responsible for all that followed. But Pearl Harbor caught the U.S. in the middle of mobilization, debate, rising tensions with looming enemies and a European war already in progress. Historians doubt anyone paid much attention to sad milestones once America threw itself into the fight.
In contrast, the United States had no war intentions against anyone on Sept. 10, 2001. One bloody day later, it did.
A whole lot more died in WWII than on Pearl Harbor Day.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Perhaps not commemoration. But I'm sure there are plenty of homegrown anti-American scum conducting celebrations.
"Freedom isn't free" alert.
"Now the death toll is 9/11 times two. U.S. military deaths from Iraq and Afghanistan now match those of the most devastating terrorist attack in America's history, the trigger for what came next. Add casualties from chasing terrorists elsewhere in the world, and the total has passed the Sept. 11 figure."
How many died at Pearl Harbor Dec. 7th 1941, and how long did it take to equal those deaths in the war that followed?
BUMP. Beat me to it.
AP propagandist can be reached here:
cwoodward@ap.org
And had the US done NOTHING, how many more American Civilians would have been killed in the past 5 years?
That's because we were coming out of the Great Depression during WWII....everybody was poor!!
Wonder if this AP propagandist knows the AP reporter who was a mole for Saddam or the one that was an admitted VietKong spy.
The MSM disgusts me.
...and those who have died in the war volunteered to be there, didn't they?
Yeah, our deathtoll may have doubled, but on 9/11, Islam only lost a baker's dozen sons.
It's safe to say that between Afghanistan and Iraq, Islam has lost more followers than Vietnam, Korea cost this country combined since 9/11, and I'm just fine with that.
"In contrast, the United States had no war intentions against anyone on Sept. 10, 2001. One bloody day later, it did."
And this little fact has been completely lost on the ill-liberals of this country.
This illogical rationalization of equating the deaths in wartime to the number killed in ONE terrorist attack is like cheering on the enemy in wartime.
All those military lives lost in defense of a country where nearly half of the population hates the country today is sad, indeed. Circle the wagons, folks, these airheads (wingnuts, moonbats, Hezbocrats, etc.)want to be in charge of defense?
"Among the Americans killed in the Iraq war, 34 percent have come from communities reporting the lowest levels of family income. Half have come from middle income communities and only 17 percent from the highest income level."
That's because libs, generally, don't raise patriots. They either abort them or fill their minds with anti-American crap and send them off to some Ivy League factory to have their stupification completed by reading Noam Chomsky and listening to bigoted professors who regard notions that men and women are different as bizarre and dangerous.
Who gives a sh-t? The AP's ghoulish and obsessive body counting continues. So what are we to conclude from this meaningless story? That fighting terrorism isn't worth it? That if we had just don't nothing after 9-11 we'd be better off? We'd have fewer dead? I know the media has been hungrily licking their lips to launch this headline one day. They probably have had some pathetic jackass who's job it is to keep a tally and give word when we reached this point. Now his job will be to let them know when the dead in Iraq reach the same level as 9-11. I'm sure they're praying it happens before November.
By the way, we lost, what, 2500 at Pearl Harbor but 100,000 fighing the Japanese? I wonder if the Clown Car AP would claim WW2 wasn't worth it too.
Who but those with an evil, hateful mind could even think to put the war in such a perspective? They are 'keeping score' of this war as though it's a sporting event, only they use human lives to tally their scores. Sick. The media are truly scum. I suppose they feel safe from islamic barbarians because they are siding with them.
That's a change from World War II, when all income groups were represented about equally.
I'm betting that if you include those killed on 911, the death toll is weighted to the higher end.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.